Electoral College - Is It Time To Abolish It?

[rdowns]

Arguments Against the Electoral College

1.the possibility of electing a minority (one without the majority of popular votes) president
2.the risk of so-called "faithless" Electors,
3.the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turnout
4.its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will.

Arguments for the Electoral College

1.contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president
2. enhances the status of minority interests,
3.contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system
4. maintains a federal system of government and representation.

What got me thinking about this is that small state (population) voter's votes carry more weight than votes from those in larger states. THis table explains it.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-10-29-Table3alt.jpg

Discuss...

[dukebound85]

i wonder why there isnt a set amt of people per electoral vote

[Anuba]

It's certainly a flawed system, but it does a surprisingly good job of reflecting the national popular will. Only three failures so far.

I would however consider penalizing states with abysmal voter turnout, such as Texas, where only some 40% can be arsed to vote, while other states like Minnesota are closer to 70%. TX has 33 electoral votes and MN 10. Suppose you were to penalize states that fail to reach 50% turnout and reward states that get over 60%? E.g. take 3 electoral votes from TX and give them to MN. This would be a strong incentive for lazy states to get out the vote.

[bradl]

3 questions come up here.

What are you meaning by 'minority'? I know you're not meaning anything racial here, but I'm just not getting the context you're using here.

As far as 'smaller states' are you meaning geographically smaller? If so, what you're saying makes sense. I believe the original intent was to give the smaller states equal amount of say in selecting the president, where 'smaller states' is based off of population. In this case, Wyoming would be smaller than Hawaii. Without reading up on it more, it's hard for me to say ATM.

Lemme have a look through the Constitution and see what I can see.

BL.

[robanga]

I think we should keep it, but make it start a football program.

[rdowns]

i wonder why there isnt a set amt of people per electoral vote

In reality, there is. Each state has as many members of the Electoral College as it has representatives (based on population) and senators together. However, lower population states are given a greater say in the electoral process than they would have in a popular vote.

[ucfgrad93]

3 questions come up here.

What are you meaning by 'minority'? I know you're not meaning anything racial here, but I'm just not getting the context you're using here.

As far as 'smaller states' are you meaning geographically smaller? If so, what you're saying makes sense. I believe the original intent was to give the smaller states equal amount of say in selecting the president, where 'smaller states' is based off of population. In this case, Wyoming would be smaller than Hawaii. Without reading up on it more, it's hard for me to say ATM.

Lemme have a look through the Constitution and see what I can see.

BL.

By minority he means didn't win the popular vote. Like George Bush did in 2000.

By smaller, I think he means in population.

[Bosunsfate]

Well, on 2000 I certainly was for abolishing the Electoral College. As it was a major reason for why Bush was allowed to occupy the Whitehouse.

But in the end, this is one of those systems that is very, very entrenched in the US.

I do think that a truly popular vote for President is not the right answer. The biggest reason being the lower voter turn out.

[rdowns]

By minority he means didn't win the popular vote. Like George Bush did in 2000.

By smaller, I think he means in population.

Yes. I have edited my post to make it clearer.

[Anuba]

I do think that a truly popular vote for President is not the right answer. The biggest reason being the lower voter turn out.
Why would it result in a lower turnout?

Austria - popular vote - 92% turnout
Italy - popular vote - 90%
Denmark - popular vote - 87%
Germany - popular vote - 86%
Sweden - popular vote - 86%

(the list goes on...)

United States - 54%

Virtually all democratic countries go by popular vote, and virtually all of them have higher voter turnout than the US has.

If anything, I think it would get more Americans to the polls because the smaller states would be eager to not let the big cities have all the power.

[takao]

Why would it result in a lower turnout?

Austria - popular vote - 92% turnout

that number is very likely from the time voting was mandatory .. since that laws are all gone now it has been currently around 78-82% for the last elections for congress etc.

since president is not really an figure with any political power here the voting turnout in austria was only 71% for the president election

[IJ Reilly]

Well sure, it's past time -- but it's also impossible to abolish. But it is possible to effectively short-circuit the Electoral College. Those plans are advancing, though I'm not sure how far they've advanced.

[Rodimus Prime]

I think the real reason that voting is so poor in the US is the winner take all system.

Really the only person who can win is either a Rep or a Dem. Third parties do not have much of a chance.

Then when you boil it down there really is not a huge difference between the 2 parties. They are both middle of the road over all.

Next we are no longer voting for who is better or even the best person for the job any more but instead the lesser of 2 very crappy evils.

It either unfit to lead power hunger person one or unfit to lead power hunger person 2.

That is why no one vote any more. We are voting for idiots who are unfit to lead.

As for the electoral collage it is not going to go away. It gives small states a lot more power than the big states and make the small states matter more to win since per person those states matter more. That and if it was just popular vote the canidates could do almost all their campaigning in Washington or some other random city. They would never have to really leave a TV studio. At least this way they are force to travel around.

With out the Electoral college you would only see the canidates in the big states like Texas and California.

As for the cart it seems strange to have Texas be the lowest since off per population it should be California. Mind you Texas does have one of the best if not the best voter registration rate in the country so that would throw it off. It would explain why it is at the bottom. Texas makes registering to vote REALLY easy. When you go to the DMV all you have to do is say yes register to vote and you are done. Nothing to fill out. And that chart is proof Texas has a much better rate the California because other wise it should be on the bottom.

[IJ Reilly]

Without the Electoral College, the candidates would treat all voters equally. The state they live in would become meaningless.

[CalBoy]

Why would it result in a lower turnout?

Austria - popular vote - 92% turnout
Italy - popular vote - 90%
Denmark - popular vote - 87%
Germany - popular vote - 86%
Sweden - popular vote - 86%

(the list goes on...)

United States - 54%

Virtually all democratic countries go by popular vote, and virtually all of them have higher voter turnout than the US has.

If anything, I think it would get more Americans to the polls because the smaller states would be eager to not let the big cities have all the power.


Two things:

1) The US is the only wealthy democracy that uses a presidential system of government; the rest use parliamentary.

2) Voting is not mandatory in the US (and neither is registration) so it's a bit deceptive to think that Americans vote less than others exclusively because of the structure of government.


As for the cart it seems strange to have Texas be the lowest since off per population it should be California.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the populations in that table are based off of 2007 estimates, while seats were apportioned off of the 2000 census.

If we use those numbers, Texas had 613,289 people per EV while California had 615,848.

As for my opinion on the Electoral College...well, I'm a bit divided. :p

It may surprise many to learn, but the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution had originally planned on numerous people running for President, and thus Congress (or rather the House) choosing most presidents, in effect making it similar to a parliamentary system.

Now of course what emerged was a two-party system, since that's the most effective way to win that office.

In terms of modern times, I think that the EC still serves a good purpose. It essentially prevents too many elections from being decided by the House, which would arguably be a worse scenario these days since we would essentially have a lot of unified government and remove that precious check and balance.

While I do think that a direct popular vote would likely improve turnout, I feel compelled to note that this would only affect Presidential election cycles; midterm elections and local elections would likely continue to suffer as they do now, and that's arguably where more voter accountability is needed.

Overall, I think the system still has some worth and while not perfect, I'd like to point out that among the wealthy democracies, the US electorate has proportionally greater power in choosing its executive compared to other nations, since party allegiance and power make the PM, not the "will" of voters.

[jplan2008]

Now of course what emerged was a two-party system, since that's the most effective way to win that office.



That's only because of how we run elections. I prefer an automatic runoff system, which would enable other parties to participate.

I also think we have to have same-day voting.

Here's a proposal for keeping the same system, yet really using the popular vote:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=773

The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan calls for states to pass identical legislation to enter them into an interstate agreement to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia once the number of participating states represents a majority of the Electoral College. The NPV plan is founded on two rights given to states under the Constitution: first, to enter into binding interstate compacts, and second, the power over how to allocate Electoral College votes (a power to change existing rules that states regularly exercised in the nation's early years, and that Maine and Nebraska exercise today). As of October 2008, it has been adopted by four states.

And the same group's proposal for primaries:

The American Plan:The Graduated Random Presidential Primary System, or The American Plan(sometimes known as the California Plan), is designed to begin with contests in small-population states, where candidates do not need tens of millions of dollars in order to compete. A wide field of presidential hopefuls will be competitive in the early going. A "minor candidate's" surprise successes in the early rounds, based more on the merit of the message than on massive amounts of money, will tend to attract money from larger numbers of small contributors for the campaign to spend in later rounds of primaries. ..

[CalBoy]

That's only because of how we run elections. I prefer an automatic runoff system, which would enable other parties to participate.

No matter what method you use, the fact that it's a single district (you can't have more than one president) with concentrated power means that all coalitions will eventually merge into two large parties.

It's the only way to win a first past the post election.

Here's a proposal for keeping the same system, yet really using the popular vote:

I know about this, but frankly, I doubt it will ever go anywhere. After a few election cycles where the popular vote coincides with the electoral vote, the fervor of the 2000 election will fade.

If implemented, it could lead to someone being elected president with a shockingly low percentage of the popular vote. Is that really how a president should be chosen?

[Rodimus Prime]

people keep siting the 2000 as where the college failed but it is also a prim example of where it showed it power.

In the entire mess is Bush lost just ONE and JUST ONE state he would never of been in office. Florida would not of mattered.

The state in question is Vermont with it 3 electoral votes. where it was a very close race there and Gore could of won it if he had campained there. If he had put some attention to the small little state he would of been in office. Instead he put all his effort into trying to take a few large states and lost because of it.

Remember in 2000 Bush had to win every state he got. Gore just needed one little small state and he would of had it.

[ucfgrad93]

people keep siting the 2000 as where the college failed but it is also a prim example of where it showed it power.

In the entire mess is Bush lost just ONE and JUST ONE state he would never of been in office. Florida would not of mattered.

The state in question is Vermont with it 3 electoral votes. where it was a very close race there and Gore could of won it if he had campained there. If he had put some attention to the small little state he would of been in office. Instead he put all his effort into trying to take a few large states and lost because of it.

Remember in 2000 Bush had to win every state he got. Gore just needed one little small state and he would of had it.

Lets also not forget an even more egregious failing....Gore didn't win his home state of Tennessee.

[Rodimus Prime]

Lets also not forget an even more egregious failing....Gore didn't win his home state of Tennessee.

that is pretty said. Almost every president who made it into office almost always wins there home state.

So there are 2 things Gore screwed up on that would of lock him in.

[CalBoy]

The state in question is Vermont

Just a quick point, it was actually New Hampshire.

But otherwise, I agree. 2000 was Gore's election to win if he had run a competent campaign and not simply banked on winning large states.

As ucfgrad93 points out, not winning his home state showed just how far Gore had drifted from his roots, which cost him the election in the end (and why most politicians always go back to their roots).

[Rodimus Prime]

Just a quick point, it was actually New Hampshire.

But otherwise, I agree. 2000 was Gore's election to win if he had run a competent campaign and not simply banked on winning large states.

As ucfgrad93 points out, not winning his home state showed just how far Gore had drifted from his roots, which cost him the election in the end (and why most politicians always go back to their roots).

Dang I was just coming here to fix that and point out my error.

The 2000 election shows a fundimental problem with the democrats and how they campain for precident. They only target the big states but neglect the little ones like New Hampshire which close them the election in 2000.

Everyone gets so high on Florida but Gore blew it in a lot of ways and instead they complain about Bush winning. Bush got one lucky break and did a lot of things right. Gore got one bad break but screwed up a lot of things to the point that minor bad luck cost him the election. If he did not make 2 huge mistakes he would of been president.

[IJ Reilly]

1) The US is the only wealthy democracy that uses a presidential system of government; the rest use parliamentary.

France has both a president and a prime minister, so at least some governments have a hybrid system.

[Queso]

It's a system which is no longer needed, so get rid. It concentrates far too much candidate attention on the battleground states, whilst ignoring enormous swathes of the country. The other thing that is drastically in need of reform is the ridiculously long handover period between administrations. In most countries this happens in a matter of days if not immediately. Two months is totally excessive, and in these partisan times even a bit dangerous.

[CalBoy]

France has both a president and a prime minister, so at least some governments have a hybrid system.

I suppose it does, until the next revolution comes around. :p

The French system is quite confusing to be honest; from the way I understand it, the president has the power to dismiss the PM. Imagine if Bush could simply dismiss Pelosi...

[Queso]

The French system is quite confusing to be honest; from the way I understand it, the president has the power to dismiss the PM. Imagine if Bush could simply dismiss Pelosi...
That's the way it works in most countries TBH, not just France.

[ucfgrad93]

It's a system which is no longer needed, so get rid. It concentrates far too much candidate attention on the battleground states, whilst ignoring enormous swathes of the country. The other thing that is drastically in need of reform is the ridiculously long handover period between administrations. In most countries this happens in a matter of days if not immediately. Two months is totally excessive, and in these partisan times even a bit dangerous.

What do you think a change to popular vote would mean? It would mean candidates would never leave places like New York, LA, Chicago, or other large urban areas.

I agree with you about the transition time.

[JG271]

As i am not American it does seem like a ridiculous system, as part of an otherwise quite democratic system. Maybe not abolish it, but:

1) Have more electoral votes and make them correspond to the population of the state.
2) Make the electoral votes proportional to who voted for whom (i think two states do this already) as opposed to the current "winner takes all" system.

So if a state with 1million people gets 10 electoral college votes, and 60% vote democrat then they get 6 democratic electoral votes, 4 republican. Then simply whoever gets the most electoral college votes wins.
This would be more democratic, not overly complicated and encourage 3rd parties more.

[Queso]

What do you think a change to popular vote would mean? It would mean candidates would never leave places like New York, LA, Chicago, or other large urban areas.
But if that's where the majority of the electorate actually live, isn't it fairer to give them the attention?

[IJ Reilly]

It's a system which is no longer needed, so get rid. It concentrates far too much candidate attention on the battleground states, whilst ignoring enormous swathes of the country.

The problem with simply trying to get rid of the Electoral College is that it's in the Constitution, and amending the Constitution to eliminate it would prove virtually impossible, because the small states which benefit from the system would never agree.

That doesn't mean that it can't be worked around. The current proposal making the rounds is for states representing the majority of electoral votes to agree to cast all of their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. I have heard that several of the larger states have signed on to this plan, but I don't know how many.

I suppose it does, until the next revolution comes around. :p

The French system is quite confusing to be honest; from the way I understand it, the president has the power to dismiss the PM. Imagine if Bush could simply dismiss Pelosi...

That's the way I understand it too, but in the French system the prime minister otherwise has more power than the president. I don't know if this might be analogous to the British system, where at least technically, I believe the Queen has the power to dismiss the prime minster.

[Queso]

I don't know if this might be analogous to the British system, where at least technically, I believe the Queen has the power to dismiss the prime minster.
Not just our Prime Minister, but technically also the Australian, New Zealand and possibly even the Canadian Prime Ministers too. However, it's one of those powers that she would lose 10 minutes after she ever used it, so in most cases the only ways to get rid of a serving Prime Minister here are if either their party turns against them or Parliament passes a vote of no confidence.

[takao]

Not just our Prime Minister, but technically also the Australian, New Zealand and possibly even the Canadian Prime Ministers too. However, it's one of those powers that she would lose 10 minutes after she ever used it, so in most cases the only ways to get rid of a serving Prime Minister here are if either their party turns against them or Parliament passes a vote of no confidence.

ahh vote of no confidence .. the standard way of getting early elections ;)


that said that the president can dismiss the priem minister or chancellor is quite normal ... after all normal the latter is the one who actually has the executive power while the former mostly representive functions .. in some countries more than others

that's why it's always good to have a president from another party as the one in power, who also happened to have diplomatic experience and is respected across party lines as a person

[atszyman]

What do you think a change to popular vote would mean? It would mean candidates would never leave places like New York, LA, Chicago, or other large urban areas.

I agree with you about the transition time.

And that's so much worse than having them spend all their time in the urban centers of a few swing states?

If you take the list of the top 262 cities by population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population) you still don't even have half of the US population. The grand total for them is a little under 82.5 million and that's getting down to cities with just over 100,000 people.

No candidate will carry 100% of the vote in the cities which would mean rural votes would be courted across the country. Right now if you look at states like Oklahoma, Utah, California and other "safe states" the underdog party has no incentive to court voters there, effectively having the campaigns run only in the "battleground" states, where a full on popular vote would mean that places like Northern California would become a battleground. I could see it forcing campaigns to think nationally rather than pander to the few big swing states.

The EC would be gone in an instant if the small states realized how screwed they really are. With FL, OH, PA being "swing states", other states with fewer than 20 electoral votes will constantly get shafted as the candidates concentrate their time and money on the larger swing states.

Gore illustrates the point well. He spent his time courting OH, and FL, ignoring the smaller NH, and TN to try and pull in the bigger ones.

For many voters they only pay attention to the national race(s) and don't pay attention to the local stuff so they only vote for president every four years and ignore the rest of the ballot. These types of voters are also the type who will stay home if their state doesn't look like it has a snowball's chance in hell of going to their supported party. Bush may very well have won in 2000 by a popular vote election as turnout increased in the GOP safe states.

Of course I could also get behind a system where we actually used the EC in a more substantial way. Eliminate the national candidates, and have electors campaign locally. Two would be elected by the entire state while another from each congressional district. Everyone would get to vote on 3 electors. Lock them all in a room and let them hash out who they think would be the best choices for president and VP. Do not allow electors to nominate themselves or other electors and don't let them declare support for anyone specifically. Elect the Electors who best share your views and let them make their case at their meeting. It would eliminate the popularity contest we now have and also eliminate avenues for attack since those being voted on aren't eligible for the office, and there would be (hopefully) little indication on who might even be selected until the EC casts their ballots.

[IJ Reilly]

The EC would be gone in an instant if the small states realized how screwed they really are. With FL, OH, PA being "swing states", other states with fewer than 20 electoral votes will constantly get shafted as the candidates concentrate their time and money on the larger swing states.

Either way, the small states are still over-represented on a per capita basis. I don't think they'd give up that disproportional influence for any reason.

If the Electoral College was to be eliminated (or worked around) then the campaigns would doubtless spend far more of their time and money in the big media markets, and also on national ad buys, like Obama did last night. For sure it would become a less retail and more wholesale style campaign.

[ucfgrad93]

Eliminate the national candidates, and have electors campaign locally. Two would be elected by the entire state while another from each congressional district. Everyone would get to vote on 3 electors. Lock them all in a room and let them hash out who they think would be the best choices for president and VP. Do not allow electors to nominate themselves or other electors and don't let them declare support for anyone specifically. Elect the Electors who best share your views and let them make their case at their meeting. It would eliminate the popularity contest we now have and also eliminate avenues for attack since those being voted on aren't eligible for the office, and there would be (hopefully) little indication on who might even be selected until the EC casts their ballots.

No offense that just reeks of back room politics. Sounds too much like the way the Pope is chosen for me.

[CalBoy]

That's the way it works in most countries TBH, not just France.

I know of no other wealthy democracy wherein one executive can replace the leader of another branch of government.

At most, parliaments can get rid of their PMs or PMs can call new elections, but I don't know of any other nation in which a president or PM can replace the other at his whim.
It's a system which is no longer needed, so get rid.

I don't know if it's no longer needed.

We'd still need a viable alternative, and frankly, there isn't a suitable alternative that is realistic (ie doesn't require a massive change in the Constitution).

The other thing that is drastically in need of reform is the ridiculously long handover period between administrations. In most countries this happens in a matter of days if not immediately. Two months is totally excessive, and in these partisan times even a bit dangerous.

It used to be 6 months believe it or not (elections were held in November and the president was sworn in in March).

However, there are a few critical details to remember. The first is that the official "election" of the president and VP doesn't really occur until mid December. Thus, the real time gap is only about one month.

Plus, Congress takes the oath much earlier (the 3rd), so only one office is delayed.

That's the way I understand it too, but in the French system the prime minister otherwise has more power than the president. I don't know if this might be analogous to the British system, where at least technically, I believe the Queen has the power to dismiss the prime minster.

From the way I had understood things, Jacques Chirac had actually replaced the PM when he was frustrated, the president may not have daily policy roles, but he does have immense power in shaping the government.

It's all terribly nonsensical and markedly French. :p

[atszyman]

No offense that just reeks of back room politics. Sounds too much like the way the Pope is chosen for me.

Well, there are a couple big differences. The president doesn't get to promote the electors, the electors cannot nominate one of their own, and they would be voted on based on how their views on how the country should run matches up with the people in their state/district who voted for them. I would hope that the electors would be looking for the most qualified and competent person to run the country, however it would definitely have the potential to be abused if the wrong sort of electors manage to get themselves in, or presidential wannabes manage to contort the process with promises of administrative positions.

It would eliminate mudslinging at the national level though, since who do to fling it at when you don't know who the candidates are?

[MacTraveller]

I suppose it does, until the next revolution comes around. :p

The French system is quite confusing to be honest; from the way I understand it, the president has the power to dismiss the PM. Imagine if Bush could simply dismiss Pelosi...

By 2050, if I'm still alive then, I look forward to seeing the inauguration of the 9th Republic.

[takao]

I know of no other wealthy democracy wherein one executive can replace the leader of another branch of government.

At most, parliaments can get rid of their PMs or PMs can call new elections, but I don't know of any other nation in which a president or PM can replace the other at his whim.

hm germany, austria ? and perhaps dozens of other european governments ?

hm of which branch is a president then ? he sure isn't legislative or juridicative
after all the president has sworn in the government in the first place .. he can throw them out and demand that the parties come up with other guys .. he cant say "i want that guy as a prime minister"


in reality though such powers are seldomly used ... if at all

[CalBoy]

hm germany, austria ? and perhaps dozens of other european governments ?

hm of which branch is a president then ? he sure isn't legislative or juridicative
after all the president has sworn in the government in the first place .. he can throw them out and demand that the parties come up with other guys .. he cant say "i want that guy as a prime minister"


in reality though such powers are seldomly used ... if at all

You and I both know that monarchs have no legal powers in modern wealthy democracies.

Every nation besides the US and France chooses its executive from among its legislature.

Even in the US system, an executive has no power to remove a member of the legislature or its leader.

That's not the case in France, which is why I said it was unusual.